Breed-Specific Legislation: Our Last Line of Defense Against Dangerous Dogs

With the recent fatal attack of a young boy in Suffolk , Virginia by his families' pet pit-bull, debates have heated up on whether or not the pit bull breed of dog is inherently dangerous and vicious. This controversial debate is clearly divided between those who believe the breed is genetically prone to violence and those who that believe these attacks are a result of an owner's lack of responsibility. “This is not a dog problem. It's a people problem” replied Maureen Hill-Hauch, vice president of the American Dog Owners Association of New York (Kirshnamurthy). To date, the Commonwealth of Virginia has not passed any so-called Dog Bite laws. It does, however, empower its local governments to enact ordinances against dangerous and vicious dogs (Synder). With the influx of dog attacks being reported in the media, many of Virginia 's fellow states and neighboring foreign countries have passed Breed-Specific legislation. Breed-Specific legislation places certain restrictions against the ownership of specific breeds of dogs such as pit-bulls. These restrictions may include any and all of the following: the requirement of muzzles and leashes while in public, required purchase of liability insurance on the dog, forbidding the dog to leave the owner's property, securing the dog in an enclosure at all times, and in some areas: a complete ban on the breed within the limits of the governing body (“Breed-Specific”). To protect its citizens from further fatal dog attacks, the Commonwealth of Virginia should join these other states and countries and consider enacting Breed-Specific legislation.

There are many examples of neighboring governing bodies enacting Breed-Specific legislation that the Commonwealth of Virginia should take into account. Two such examples where Breed-Specific legislation has been enacted are Denver , Colorado and the United Kingdom . Following a fatal attack on a minister and two children in 2004, Denver instituted a breed-specific ban on pit bulls. At the time, the state deemed the ban unconstitutional and prohibited it from going into effect. Recently a judge overturned the state's ruling, and Denver has once again instituted a breed-specific ban on pit-bulls. Denver 's ban on pit-bulls makes it one of the strictest uses of Breed-Specific legislation in the country. Glen Bui, vice president of the American Canine Foundation states, “ Denver is one of three major metropolitan areas [along with Miami and Cincinnati ] to ban pit bulls” (“ Denver pit”). The ban applies to any dog that physically resembles a pit bull regardless of its demeanor. With the reinstitution of the ban, come many arguments by people who feel the ban is too misguided, and that instead of targeting these dogs, the city should target all dogs that prove to be dangerous and punish irresponsible owners accordingly. Councilman Charlie Brown exclaims,” pit bulls are trained to attack. They're bred to do that.” (“ Denver pit”). In 1991 after an increase of reported dog attacks, the United Kingdom passed the Dangerous Dogs Act to help ease the growing concern among its citizens. This legislation targeted four breeds of dogs, including pit bulls, which were deemed dangerous. With the passing of this legislation, it was illegal to own any of these dogs without a special court-order. It also required that owners keep these dogs muzzled and leashed while out in public. Additionally, these dogs had to be registered, insured for liability, and received microchip implants, equivalent to ankle bracelets used to monitor humans on house arrest (“Dangerous Dogs”).

While Breed-Specific legislation seems to be the answer to preventing further dog attacks, it still has its flaws such as breed classification and logistics. These flaws have caused many governing bodies from approving the passing of this legislation. One flaw of Breed-Specific legislation is breed classification. Classifying certain breeds of dogs is extremely difficult because there are several breeds and sub-breeds. In fact, the term “Pit Bull” pertains to several breeds of Bull Terriers. The two most common breeds of Bull Terriers are the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and the American Pit Bull Terrier. Both of these breeds share similar characteristics that make it rather difficult to distinguish between the two. Another flaw of Breed-Specific legislation is logistics. In the past, politicians have been reluctant to pass any sort of Breed-Specific legislation because of the inherent costs that are involved. In passing Breed-Specific legislation, there would be a need to hire additional animal control officers, and support personnel. Furthermore, funds would be needed to build new, larger holding facilities to house the additional dogs that would be confiscated as a result of violations to the new legislation (Thomas “The Dangerous”).

As the debate over Breed-Specific legislation rages on, the Commonwealth of Virginia can institute some provisional solutions in the interim. These provisional solutions include the mandating of the current dangerous and vicious dog ordinances statewide and requiring all potential and current dog owners to enroll in mandatory owner education courses. By mandating the current dangerous and vicious dog ordinances statewide instead of leaving it up to the local governments' discretion, it places the state more in control of the protection of its citizens from further attacks by dangerous and vicious breeds. The current dangerous and vicious dog ordinances are very similar to the United Kingdom's Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991, in the Commonwealth of Virginia a person who owns what is deemed a dangerous dog must register with the local animal control agency and purchase a dangerous dog certificate. This registered dog must also wear an identification tag indicating that it is dangerous and either be tattooed on the inside of its thigh or be implanted with a microchip identifying it as such. Additionally, the owner of a dangerous dog must post warning signs on his property informing others that a dangerous dog is being housed on the premises. While in the owner's custody, the dog must either be housed indoors or secured in an enclosure outside on the property. The dog is required to wear a muzzle and be leashed at all times while out in public (“Dangerous Dogs”). If the owner violates any of these ordinances, he or she possibly face up to one year in jail and/or be required to pay a monetary fine (Synder). Requiring all potential and current dog owners enroll in mandatory owner education seminars would be beneficial in the prevention of any future dog attacks. Comparable to a teenager having to enroll in a driver's education course before operating a motor vehicle, owner education courses would teach both potential and current dog owners the proper ways of owning a dog. After completing these courses, the owner would have to demonstrate via examination the proper ways of owning a dog. As in the case of failure to operate a motor vehicle properly, if an owner's dog is involved in an attack, the owner would have to repeat the course. If there is more than one incident involving the dog, the owner's right to own his dog would come under review with the possibility of having his ownership rights suspended thereby losing his dog temporarily or revocation and thus, banned from ever owning a dog in the state ever again.

In order for the Commonwealth of Virginia to protect its citizens from any further attacks by dangerous and vicious dogs, it must consider enacting Breed-Specific legislation. By reviewing examples of Breed-Specific legislation in action, outweighing its flaws, and instituting provisional solutions in the interim, the Commonwealth of Virginia will, in essence, provide a stronger line of defense against future dangerous and vicious dog attacks.